Kicsit ugorgyunk vissza egyik kedvencünkhöz, az evolucionizmushoz.
Na most, kérem.
Az evolucionizmus botránya és népszerűsége a kezdetektől az, hogy feleslegessé teheti a teremtés és a Teremtő fogalmait.
Az élet és az ember keletkezése a Földön így megoldódnék Isten nélkül. Hurrá!
Azonban néhány eszement megkérdőjelezi az evolucionizmust. Tudománytalanok, nyilván. Mit tegyen velük a tudomány? Vitatkozzon? Á, semmiképp!
„Mi voltunk elég hülyék ahhoz, hogy szóba álltunk velük, különben sehova nem jutottak volna. Azt gondolom most, hogy nem kell foglalkozni ezekkel az emberekkel, nem kell nekik teret adni, főjenek a saját levükben. Annál is inkább, mert kezd már unalmassá válni a kreacionizmus és az értelmes tervezettség, ez ugyanis nem egy fejlődő sztori. Mindig ugyanazt a néhány butaságot mondják el, amiknek nagy része effektíve a tudatlanságukból táplálkozik.
Tény, hogy az evolúcióelméletnek vannak hézagai, és fel lehet tenni kellemetlen kérdéseket, de a kreacionisták által feltett kérdések egyáltalán nem kellemetlenek — legfeljebb intellektuálisan, merthogy butaságok. Nem köteles persze mindenkinek betéve tudni az evolúciót és a biológiát, de akkor tartsa a száját. Nem lehet társadalmi vitát folytatni olyanokkal, akik nem végezték el az iskolát. És itt a demokrácia kérdéséhez jutunk, a tudás pedig nem demokratikus. Én tudom, a másik nem. A tudomány és az oktatás demokratikus abban az értelemben, hogy bárkinek lehetősége van belépni és megtenni azokat a lépéseket, amik a tudáshoz szükségesek.”
A tudomány nem vitatkozik! Triumfál!
A tudás qrvára nem demokratikus, kis köcsögök! Vitatkoznátok? Van egyetemi kinevezésetek? Tenured-e vagyol? Van research budget-od? Voltál már Nagyon Nagy Tudományos Konferencián? Ha nem, akkor pofát súlyba!
Mi van, ha nem mezei hadak, hanem más tenured tudósok — akiknek szintén van research budget-ük, és voltak már Nagyon Nagy és Nemzetközi Konferencián — fogalmaznak meg észrevételeket, kérdéseket, zavaró problémákat? Mondjuk: hogyan is keletkezett az élet? Csak egy ilyen eccerűt.
Is Evolutionism scientific?
1 — Fraudulence, contradictions and gratuitous affirmations of evolutionists
When somebody tries to prove something by fraudulent means, this constitutes a confession that one recognizes the non-existence of real proofs on the matter in to be proved.
Well, during its history Evolutionism many times resorted to fraudulent falsifications in order to convince the scientific community and the public that man came from an inferior animal and that he would not have been created by God. There has never been, in the History of Science, a theory so infected in its history by frauds, as Evolutionism. In spite of this, it is still presented as true.
We will tackle the most famous frauds — perpetrated by famous scientists, when we analyze the human fossils.
Contradictions are also really common.
Nowadays, for instance, the evolutionist paleontologists and biologists do not reach an agreement with respect to man’s age. Paleontologists attribute to the homideous or human fossils fabulous ages that reach to 3 millions years. But biologists are much more modest in their numbers.
In 1987, American molecular biologists, comparing genetic material from the mothers’ side of populations from several continents, concluded that every men descent from only one mother. So there really would have existed a “mother of all human livings”, expression designed in the Sacred Scriptures by the name of Eve.
Most important is the age these biologists calculated for the appearance of this sole mother: approximately 200.000 years.
This figure caused enormous protests among paleontologists, because it meant implicitly that all awfully old fossils that have been presented as man’s ancestor, or even as primitive men, were disqualified.
In what Science to trust? In Paleontology or in Biology? An anguishing dilemma to those who trust blindly in proofs of Science.
Taking into account so many variations, frauds, contradictions and anti-scientific absurdities of History of evolutionist theory, it’s not to be surprised about what Marcel de Corte has said about it:
“Evolutionism rings the bells to the funeral of intelligence. Intelligence is in danger of death”.
2 — Scientists’ opinions against the evolutionist theory
Since the uprising of darwinist theory, it has raised objections that science has confirmed.
In 1871, St George Mivart raised arguments that remain upright against Darwinist Evolutionism.
“What would be proper to assert (against Darwinism), could be summarized this way: that “natural selection” is unable to explain the incipient stages of useful structures. That it harmonizes not with the coexistence of very similar structures, from different origins. That there is ground for thinking that specific differences can be suddenly developed, and not gradually. That it is yet sustainable the opinion that the species have defined boundaries, though quite different ones, to their variability. That some kinds of transitional fossils are absent, when one could expect that they would be present... That there are numerous noticeable phenomena in organic forms about which the “natural selection” have very little to say” (Apud M. Behe, op. cit. p. 39)
Several of these arguments are yet to be answered, and, after a century of research and massive propaganda, they remain unanswered.
Lately, many scientists have pronounced themselves against the evolutionist theory, especially against Darwinism. Michael Behe gives many citations of famous scientists who confessed to be disappointed with Darwinism. Here are some of these quotations: Richard Goldschimidt, a famous geneticist, yet in the 40’s — therefore long before the discovery of the DNA and the development of Biochemistry – revealed himself disappointed with the Darwinian evolutionist theory, at the point of proposing the theory of the so-called “hopeful monster”: a reptile, for example, could lay an egg from which a bird would be born (acc. M. Behe, op. cit. p. 35).
The famous paleontologist Nils Elridge — who founded, along with Jay Gould, the evolutionist “punctuated equilibrium” theory — has declared:
“It is not surprising that paleontologists have ignored evolution for so long. Apparently, it never occurs. The careful gathering of material at cliffs shows zigzag oscillations, little ones, and very scarce accumulation of small changes – throughout millions of years, in too slow a rate to explain all the prodigious changes that happened in evolutionary history. When we see the appearing of evolution news, this happens generally like a thunderclap and, often, without any solid proofs that the fossils did not evolve in other places too! Evolution cannot be always happening in other places. Yet, that was how fossil register came about to many desperate paleontologists who wanted to learn something about evolution.” (M. Behe, op. cit., p. 36).
Two English biologists, Mae-Wan and Peter Saunders, assert:
“It has passed almost half century since the formulation of the neo-darwinian synthesis. A great volume of research was made under the paradigm defined by it. However, the successes of the theory are limited to trivial particulars of evolution, like the adaptive changes in the color of moths, at the same time that people have very little to say about the questions that interest us the most, like, to start, how the moths appeared.” (Apud M. Behe, op. cit. p. 37).
The geneticist John McDonald shows an enigma that cannot be explained by darwinism:
“The result of the last twenty years of research about the genetic basis of adaptation lead us to a big darwinian paradox. Those [genes] that are obviously changeable in natural populations do not seem to constitute the basis of many of the big adaptive changes, while those [genes] that seem to constitute, in fact, the foundation of many, if not of the majority, of the big adaptive changes, apparently are not variable in natural populations.”
In other words, the genes that vary do not cause changes. And the genes that do not vary would cause adaptations. Exactly the opposite from what Darwinism presumes!
Jerry Coyne, from the Chicago University Ecology and Evolution Department, sentenced:
“We conclude — unexpectedly — that there are very few proofs that support the neo-darwinian theory: its foundations are weak, as are the experimental evidences that support it” (Apud M. Behe, op. cit. p. 37).
Another geneticist, John Endler, from California University, stated:
“Although many things about mutation are known, it is still, on the whole, a “black box”, regarding evolution. New biochemical functions seem to be rare in evolution, and the basis of their origin is virtually unknown” (apud M. Behe, op. cit. p. 38).
Also most recent mathematical studies have prooved themselves contrary to the evolutionist theory. Hubert Yockey, an information theoretic, says that “the information necessary to start life up could not have appeared by chance, and suggests that the life should be considered as data, like matter and energy (M. Behe, op. cit. p. 38).
In a mathematicians and biologists symposium in 1966 at Wistar Institute of Philadelphia, mathematicians showed that the time required for the necessary mutations to form an eye was absolutely insufficient to have it accomplished, and concluded:
“There is a great hole in the neo-darwinian theory of evolution, and, we believe that it is of such a nature that cannot be conciliated with the current conception of Biology” (Apud M. Behe, op. cit. p. 38).
Even those who do not openly deny Darwinism places doubts about it.
Martin Kauffman, from Santa Fe Institute, wrote:
“Darwin and the evolution dominate us, whatever the complains of creationist scientists be. But is this thesis correct? Better yet, is it adequate? I believe not. It is not that Darwin was wrong, but yes, he understood just part of the truth” (apud M. Behe, op. cit. p. 38).
It is very hard to figure out how Darwin elaborated a not “correct”, nor “adequate”, theory and, at the same time, that was not “wrong”. Notice in this declaration the fear to contradict Evolutionism, this idol of modern world.
Klaus Dose, a well-known scientist specialized in the problem of origin of life, concluded:
“More than thirty years of experiments about the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution led us to a clearer perception of the enormity of the problem of its appearing on Earth, instead of leading to a solution. Nowadays all discussions about the main experiments and theories in this field ended at a deadlock or in a confession of ignorance” (apud M. Behe, op. cit. p. 172).
Michael Behe:
“The claims on the existence of darwinian molecular evolution is simply a joke.”
Thus, Michael Behe himself, at the end of his book, concludes:
“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in scientific literature – prestigious magazines, specialized magazines or books – which describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex biochemical system occurred or could have occurred. There are claims that this evolution happened, but none of them based in pertinent experiment or calculation. Once nobody knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and also because there is not an authority over which one can base allegations of knowledge, we can say with conviction that – as our claim that our team will win the championship this year – the affirmation of existence of darwinian molecular evolution is simply a joke” (M. Behe, op. cit. p. 189).
Ha eltekintünk az államilag tudósnak kinevezettek arroganciájáról — hiszen a Föld banán alakú —, akkor érdemes észrevenni e „tudományos” érvelés egyik sajátosságát: az evolúció tudományos állítás, annak megkérdőjelezése tudománytalan. Ha ezt mégis tudósok tennék, akkor... majd valami ad hoc érvet kitalálunk. De az élet keletkezett, punktum!
Jó.
De az emberek közt — akikről eddig azt hallottuk, hogy a természet részei, az evolúció eredményei — már nem érvényes az evolúció. Sem az egyének, sem a fajok közt. Nincs jobb, életképesebb egyed, sem csoport vagy faj. És harc sincs köztük. De ne is legyen, majd a jóléti állam megszervezi az életüket.
Azt tudom, hogy az evolucionizmus hazai képviselő mit gondolnak a szociáldarwinizmusról, de arra nagyon kíváncsi lennék, hogy egy magyari evolucionista mi a szent szart mond az evolúciós pszichológiáról? Mert az meg nem kicsit nackó szagú vagy rasszista kell legyen szerintük, miként a fajelmélet is.
A gonosz és buta teisták elleni szent harc beleviszi őket a rasszizmusba, megint és megint?
Na most, kérem.
Az evolucionizmus botránya és népszerűsége a kezdetektől az, hogy feleslegessé teheti a teremtés és a Teremtő fogalmait.
Az élet és az ember keletkezése a Földön így megoldódnék Isten nélkül. Hurrá!
Azonban néhány eszement megkérdőjelezi az evolucionizmust. Tudománytalanok, nyilván. Mit tegyen velük a tudomány? Vitatkozzon? Á, semmiképp!
„Mi voltunk elég hülyék ahhoz, hogy szóba álltunk velük, különben sehova nem jutottak volna. Azt gondolom most, hogy nem kell foglalkozni ezekkel az emberekkel, nem kell nekik teret adni, főjenek a saját levükben. Annál is inkább, mert kezd már unalmassá válni a kreacionizmus és az értelmes tervezettség, ez ugyanis nem egy fejlődő sztori. Mindig ugyanazt a néhány butaságot mondják el, amiknek nagy része effektíve a tudatlanságukból táplálkozik.
Tény, hogy az evolúcióelméletnek vannak hézagai, és fel lehet tenni kellemetlen kérdéseket, de a kreacionisták által feltett kérdések egyáltalán nem kellemetlenek — legfeljebb intellektuálisan, merthogy butaságok. Nem köteles persze mindenkinek betéve tudni az evolúciót és a biológiát, de akkor tartsa a száját. Nem lehet társadalmi vitát folytatni olyanokkal, akik nem végezték el az iskolát. És itt a demokrácia kérdéséhez jutunk, a tudás pedig nem demokratikus. Én tudom, a másik nem. A tudomány és az oktatás demokratikus abban az értelemben, hogy bárkinek lehetősége van belépni és megtenni azokat a lépéseket, amik a tudáshoz szükségesek.”
A tudomány nem vitatkozik! Triumfál!
A tudás qrvára nem demokratikus, kis köcsögök! Vitatkoznátok? Van egyetemi kinevezésetek? Tenured-e vagyol? Van research budget-od? Voltál már Nagyon Nagy Tudományos Konferencián? Ha nem, akkor pofát súlyba!
Mi van, ha nem mezei hadak, hanem más tenured tudósok — akiknek szintén van research budget-ük, és voltak már Nagyon Nagy és Nemzetközi Konferencián — fogalmaznak meg észrevételeket, kérdéseket, zavaró problémákat? Mondjuk: hogyan is keletkezett az élet? Csak egy ilyen eccerűt.
Is Evolutionism scientific?
1 — Fraudulence, contradictions and gratuitous affirmations of evolutionists
When somebody tries to prove something by fraudulent means, this constitutes a confession that one recognizes the non-existence of real proofs on the matter in to be proved.
Well, during its history Evolutionism many times resorted to fraudulent falsifications in order to convince the scientific community and the public that man came from an inferior animal and that he would not have been created by God. There has never been, in the History of Science, a theory so infected in its history by frauds, as Evolutionism. In spite of this, it is still presented as true.
We will tackle the most famous frauds — perpetrated by famous scientists, when we analyze the human fossils.
Contradictions are also really common.
Nowadays, for instance, the evolutionist paleontologists and biologists do not reach an agreement with respect to man’s age. Paleontologists attribute to the homideous or human fossils fabulous ages that reach to 3 millions years. But biologists are much more modest in their numbers.
In 1987, American molecular biologists, comparing genetic material from the mothers’ side of populations from several continents, concluded that every men descent from only one mother. So there really would have existed a “mother of all human livings”, expression designed in the Sacred Scriptures by the name of Eve.
Most important is the age these biologists calculated for the appearance of this sole mother: approximately 200.000 years.
This figure caused enormous protests among paleontologists, because it meant implicitly that all awfully old fossils that have been presented as man’s ancestor, or even as primitive men, were disqualified.
In what Science to trust? In Paleontology or in Biology? An anguishing dilemma to those who trust blindly in proofs of Science.
Taking into account so many variations, frauds, contradictions and anti-scientific absurdities of History of evolutionist theory, it’s not to be surprised about what Marcel de Corte has said about it:
“Evolutionism rings the bells to the funeral of intelligence. Intelligence is in danger of death”.
2 — Scientists’ opinions against the evolutionist theory
Since the uprising of darwinist theory, it has raised objections that science has confirmed.
In 1871, St George Mivart raised arguments that remain upright against Darwinist Evolutionism.
“What would be proper to assert (against Darwinism), could be summarized this way: that “natural selection” is unable to explain the incipient stages of useful structures. That it harmonizes not with the coexistence of very similar structures, from different origins. That there is ground for thinking that specific differences can be suddenly developed, and not gradually. That it is yet sustainable the opinion that the species have defined boundaries, though quite different ones, to their variability. That some kinds of transitional fossils are absent, when one could expect that they would be present... That there are numerous noticeable phenomena in organic forms about which the “natural selection” have very little to say” (Apud M. Behe, op. cit. p. 39)
Several of these arguments are yet to be answered, and, after a century of research and massive propaganda, they remain unanswered.
Lately, many scientists have pronounced themselves against the evolutionist theory, especially against Darwinism. Michael Behe gives many citations of famous scientists who confessed to be disappointed with Darwinism. Here are some of these quotations: Richard Goldschimidt, a famous geneticist, yet in the 40’s — therefore long before the discovery of the DNA and the development of Biochemistry – revealed himself disappointed with the Darwinian evolutionist theory, at the point of proposing the theory of the so-called “hopeful monster”: a reptile, for example, could lay an egg from which a bird would be born (acc. M. Behe, op. cit. p. 35).
The famous paleontologist Nils Elridge — who founded, along with Jay Gould, the evolutionist “punctuated equilibrium” theory — has declared:
“It is not surprising that paleontologists have ignored evolution for so long. Apparently, it never occurs. The careful gathering of material at cliffs shows zigzag oscillations, little ones, and very scarce accumulation of small changes – throughout millions of years, in too slow a rate to explain all the prodigious changes that happened in evolutionary history. When we see the appearing of evolution news, this happens generally like a thunderclap and, often, without any solid proofs that the fossils did not evolve in other places too! Evolution cannot be always happening in other places. Yet, that was how fossil register came about to many desperate paleontologists who wanted to learn something about evolution.” (M. Behe, op. cit., p. 36).
Two English biologists, Mae-Wan and Peter Saunders, assert:
“It has passed almost half century since the formulation of the neo-darwinian synthesis. A great volume of research was made under the paradigm defined by it. However, the successes of the theory are limited to trivial particulars of evolution, like the adaptive changes in the color of moths, at the same time that people have very little to say about the questions that interest us the most, like, to start, how the moths appeared.” (Apud M. Behe, op. cit. p. 37).
The geneticist John McDonald shows an enigma that cannot be explained by darwinism:
“The result of the last twenty years of research about the genetic basis of adaptation lead us to a big darwinian paradox. Those [genes] that are obviously changeable in natural populations do not seem to constitute the basis of many of the big adaptive changes, while those [genes] that seem to constitute, in fact, the foundation of many, if not of the majority, of the big adaptive changes, apparently are not variable in natural populations.”
In other words, the genes that vary do not cause changes. And the genes that do not vary would cause adaptations. Exactly the opposite from what Darwinism presumes!
Jerry Coyne, from the Chicago University Ecology and Evolution Department, sentenced:
“We conclude — unexpectedly — that there are very few proofs that support the neo-darwinian theory: its foundations are weak, as are the experimental evidences that support it” (Apud M. Behe, op. cit. p. 37).
Another geneticist, John Endler, from California University, stated:
“Although many things about mutation are known, it is still, on the whole, a “black box”, regarding evolution. New biochemical functions seem to be rare in evolution, and the basis of their origin is virtually unknown” (apud M. Behe, op. cit. p. 38).
Also most recent mathematical studies have prooved themselves contrary to the evolutionist theory. Hubert Yockey, an information theoretic, says that “the information necessary to start life up could not have appeared by chance, and suggests that the life should be considered as data, like matter and energy (M. Behe, op. cit. p. 38).
In a mathematicians and biologists symposium in 1966 at Wistar Institute of Philadelphia, mathematicians showed that the time required for the necessary mutations to form an eye was absolutely insufficient to have it accomplished, and concluded:
“There is a great hole in the neo-darwinian theory of evolution, and, we believe that it is of such a nature that cannot be conciliated with the current conception of Biology” (Apud M. Behe, op. cit. p. 38).
Even those who do not openly deny Darwinism places doubts about it.
Martin Kauffman, from Santa Fe Institute, wrote:
“Darwin and the evolution dominate us, whatever the complains of creationist scientists be. But is this thesis correct? Better yet, is it adequate? I believe not. It is not that Darwin was wrong, but yes, he understood just part of the truth” (apud M. Behe, op. cit. p. 38).
It is very hard to figure out how Darwin elaborated a not “correct”, nor “adequate”, theory and, at the same time, that was not “wrong”. Notice in this declaration the fear to contradict Evolutionism, this idol of modern world.
Klaus Dose, a well-known scientist specialized in the problem of origin of life, concluded:
“More than thirty years of experiments about the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution led us to a clearer perception of the enormity of the problem of its appearing on Earth, instead of leading to a solution. Nowadays all discussions about the main experiments and theories in this field ended at a deadlock or in a confession of ignorance” (apud M. Behe, op. cit. p. 172).
Michael Behe:
“The claims on the existence of darwinian molecular evolution is simply a joke.”
Thus, Michael Behe himself, at the end of his book, concludes:
“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in scientific literature – prestigious magazines, specialized magazines or books – which describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex biochemical system occurred or could have occurred. There are claims that this evolution happened, but none of them based in pertinent experiment or calculation. Once nobody knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and also because there is not an authority over which one can base allegations of knowledge, we can say with conviction that – as our claim that our team will win the championship this year – the affirmation of existence of darwinian molecular evolution is simply a joke” (M. Behe, op. cit. p. 189).
Ha eltekintünk az államilag tudósnak kinevezettek arroganciájáról — hiszen a Föld banán alakú —, akkor érdemes észrevenni e „tudományos” érvelés egyik sajátosságát: az evolúció tudományos állítás, annak megkérdőjelezése tudománytalan. Ha ezt mégis tudósok tennék, akkor... majd valami ad hoc érvet kitalálunk. De az élet keletkezett, punktum!
Jó.
De az emberek közt — akikről eddig azt hallottuk, hogy a természet részei, az evolúció eredményei — már nem érvényes az evolúció. Sem az egyének, sem a fajok közt. Nincs jobb, életképesebb egyed, sem csoport vagy faj. És harc sincs köztük. De ne is legyen, majd a jóléti állam megszervezi az életüket.
Azt tudom, hogy az evolucionizmus hazai képviselő mit gondolnak a szociáldarwinizmusról, de arra nagyon kíváncsi lennék, hogy egy magyari evolucionista mi a szent szart mond az evolúciós pszichológiáról? Mert az meg nem kicsit nackó szagú vagy rasszista kell legyen szerintük, miként a fajelmélet is.
A gonosz és buta teisták elleni szent harc beleviszi őket a rasszizmusba, megint és megint?
Bejegyzések
